I pick 1896 because that is specifically the point at which you can clearly identify where the parties went in the modern sense. Prior to that, it becomes foggier. That Cleveland, the last center-right Democrat to be elected (all left to ultra-left since), was all but forced out from being able to run again with the party being taken over by radical leftists (Bryan and Altgeld), was really the last time the party was run by sane individuals from the top. Beginning with William Jennings Bryan, who, although a devout Christian, tried to marry it with economic Socialism, led the party down the primrose path. The GOP, despite having its own left-wingers, generally kept away from going that direction (indeed, the Silverite Republicans bolted the party and became Democrats in the 1890s) at the top of the ticket. Cleveland was much more comfortable with having the Presidency pass from him to McKinley than to Bryan, who would've been a fiasco.
"The progressive era was full of Republican socialists."
Never said it wasn't. But other than in 1904 with Theodore Roosevelt, the party didn't nominate one after another as the Dems did. Not for lack of trying.
""Mercantilism" was the official name of the philosophy of Henry Clay, who was Lincoln's mentor in politics. "Mercantilism" believes that government should serve to help industry make profits because it increases the economic activity for the nation. American policy from this era was very much about helping large industries make money."
Forgive me, I was momentarily thinking of the British model. The Clay model was not really an "out there" hardcore Socialist economic method at a time when it made sense to employ every reasonable method to grow the country. I probably would've supported it at the time - to an extent. This is why it's difficult to compare economic methods of that era to ours today. I'm not a strictly "free market" person, anyway. That method, as we saw, did nothing in the past decades but to send jobs and industries out of the country.
"I now believe that an excessively easy life engenders a liberal/socialist mindset in the benefactors of a life of ease, especially in the subsequent generations from those who created the initial wealth. I believe this is a characteristic of human nature and is inherent in mankind. In other words, wealth tends to make people "insane" or "nuts." We have to have economic pressure on us to keep us sensible."
That's why I have no qualms about confiscatory-level taxation on rich leftists. They want Communism ? They pay for it. 100% taxation on all assets acquired above, say, the national income average. I'm not joking, either.
I too have came to realize that there are flaws with the laissez faire economic model of capitalism. Not only does it seek the most profits at the expense of it's countrymen, it also seeks to create rent seeking monopolies.
That's why I have no qualms about confiscatory-level taxation on rich leftists. They want Communism ? They pay for it. 100% taxation on all assets acquired above, say, the national income average. I'm not joking, either.
I have said similar things many times. I keep telling people we need to apply the rules of socialism to those who support socialism.
I think we need wealthy people, but as you have said, at some point such wealth becomes ridiculous, though giving it to the government is not a worthwhile purpose for it either.
Government can turn wealth into evil very often.